Oldmandan

I can't remember what interview it was from, but IIRC, it's not that it's an unsolvable problem, it's in the standard they wished to hold dialogue to. A swap is easy, a swap that feels natural is not. The exponential explosion of little tweaks and permutations was outside the scope they were willing/able to add before release. (Presumably they are under some pressure to release, not just from fans, but from WotC, and the logistics of keeping the company afloat.) Which I can respect, although I both anticipate and fully understand the need for mods to do the swap.

In before it turns put we can romance serial-killer Julikar. :P (The "canon" Dark Urge, I believe, who it's been implied you'll meet in Baldur's Gate if you don't choose them.)

I... am growing somewhat confused as to what is being argued, here.

Alignment as an axes system is flawed (but people liked it better this way, other systems have been experimented with in other editions), yeah, because the axes correlate by nature, and things like good and law have different meanings based on how much you value the other. But... categories aren't better? Because morality and ethics do exist on a spectrum, as much as the spectrum used is a poor representation. I get the sense (no intent to put words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong) you see alignments as broad character archetypes, more so than descriptions of their ethics and morality? Which is fine if you want to treat them that way, just liable to get confusing.

Again, fairly fundemental philosophical differences. This isn't the forum for writing essays about the nature of self and of minds, and the capacity for change, so I'm not going to do that here.

As for actions; this is actually what I was getting at. Nature and action can be in opposition, but as outside observers, we determine nature from action. Is a change in action a change in nature, or a facet of complex circumstance? Can nature change without a correlating change in action? The NPCs and other characters shouldn't have access to the writing on your character sheet. They should judge you by the information they have available.

I think, again, I have managed to put my foot into my mouth, but I also think this is maybe reaching the root of the disagreement (although, as mentioned, I am a little confused about that :P). To my mind, alignment is something determined from character, not a in-depth descriptor of character. Your character, their role in the story and their personality, matters to the whole table. But your alignment is an (incomplete and over-generalized) aspect of that, not the whole of it, nowhere close.

Absolutely not. There are 9 separate alignments, each well covered and presented by D&D and its derivatives like Pathfinder as well as numerous articles and possibly sourcebooks/handbooks. There are suggestions as to how apply each by the DM to his NPCs and how to roleplay one as a PC.

Eh. There are two axis divided up into approximate zones. Said suggestions, based on these zones, cover a wide range of characters, that might fundementally disagree on questions of morality and ethics. They provide guidelines and generalizations about what they care about and prioritize. The label only means as much as can be held true across all permutations of characters within it, which isn't a lot. Again, moral shorthand for general situations.

Not really, no. It takes a severe physical trauma/farmacology to change the character of a man. Mood might change, patience might fail, but you don’t shift from a saint to a murderer overnight. You may walk among your fellow people pretending to be something else than you really are, but the mask isn’t your “alignment” and by wearing it you’re effectively casting a spell that hides the real you before the eyes of the other people.

To avoid getting too deep into philosophical considerations of the self, and the nature of minds, I will just say that I fundementally disagree with this interpretation of humanity. And, it is worth noting, this hyperbolizes somewhat. A change from good to neutral is still a change. :P People don't tend to seesaw between extremes, but rather vary about some average. More importantly, perhaps, at what point does/must action reflect nature? But, ultimately, I think this is a philosphical disagreement that cannot be easily bridged. /shurg

I see no problem in deciding what character I will play before the game begins and trying to “fill the boots” during the session(s).

To be fair, this was poor phrasing, on my part. The morals and ethics of your character are, obviously, part of the character's concept. But if you want that concept to be reflected in the world, you have to live up to it. Words on paper do not determine the morality of your character. (Alignment is essentially entirely phased out at this point, mechanically, for a reason.) Your alignment only really matters for the DM, in how they make the world respond to you. And (unless you're dealing with cosmological forces/extraplanar entities), that is often more nuanced than nine vague categories can adequately express. /shurg

Doesn't help that a lot of this gets internalized, I think. Like, fuck, there are plenty of terms that seem reasonably descriptive of me (bi, demi, enby, etc.) but... I'm super straight passing, and not super driven by sex or romantic relationships, so it's like... I never really have to deal with these labels in my day-to-day? I stick he/they in stuff when people ask for pronouns, style myself somewhat androgynously, am well aware 90s David Boreanaz is objectively eye-candy, and I haven't gone on a date in... years, because I just don't really care. But claiming those labels feels improper, somehow. Both from a "born and raised christian, que toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia" perspective and a "I am in a position of extreme privilege where I haven't had to face many of the struggles common to the LGBTQIA+ community, claiming a place there seems insulting" perspective. /shurg

TBH, alignments are, at best, a shorthand for a character's morals, how they'll likely act in a philosophical vacuum as it were; with no context, will they default to upholding the law, or defying it? Helping others, or prioritizing themselves?

For a cosmological force/extraplanar entity, these things can be absolute and binding; upholding a law they believe unjust because it is law, withholding aid even when offering it might be in your best interest, because kindness is weakness. But for everyday people? Who, why, when, where; all the possible little nuances matter. Our "alignment" might change day by day with our mood.

Much more useful, IMO, for to just be ignored during character creation, and the characters judged by how they behave. You don't decide ahead of time whether or not you're playing a good character, you show me during the session. That way, it's not words on paper, it's the actual nature of the character you want to play. /shurg

Conflict drives storytelling. /shurg Internal, character-focused stories require internal, character-focused conflict. The good ending will be that much more satisfying I'm sure, if you achieve it after supporting the characters through their issues and personal growth. :P And if there is pain or heartbreak along the way, that's just part of telling an impactful story. :P

Sad they're looking to consolidate, puts a firm nail in the coffin of the idea that I might be able to pester their Quebec office for a job if my eng degree doesn't pan out jobs-wise, but I get it. :P (Bigger company gets harder to manage, especially if you're trying to maintain a healthy environment low on coporate bullshit.) Super hyped for any and every project they put out in the future, if they are able to so much as replicate what they've done with BG3, never mind expand on it.

It got more questionable the further I scrolled. /shurg Perhaps it's just marketing (thumbnails decrying feminism/diversity/etc) but bare minimum he gives off vibes like he's trying to cater to a far-right crowd.

"Right" is "capitalism is a good economic system" (degree of acknowledgement of current problems variable), and "traditional values have value, so care and caution should be taken before change is made." IE, the modus operandi of most (American) parties that brand themselves as left wing. :P It shouldn't be fucking screaming about things being "woke" or too feminine or too diverse. As soon as it's about hate, instead of policy, it's alt-right. The problem is that nowadays, that's all there seems to be.

I'm not terribly keen on watching any of the vids on his second channel; maybe the titles and thumbnails are just click bait and the actual content is more level-headed, but I've got better things to do. /shurg

Damn. Motherboard is probably my most immediate need, my current one just barely fits my GPU, getting the RAM in around it was a struggle, and I had to scrap the wifi card I wanted. (Yeah, yeah, wired is better, but it's not convenient for me RN. :P)